Farhan Lalji wrote:-I think there are many ways to skin a cat. Yes - a superstar goalie is a tremendous luxury to have.........as teams such as Boston (Thomas), LA (Quick), NYR (Lundquist), and St. Louis (Price/Elliot) have proved in recent years, but a team can also succeed with a "decent" goaltending provided that the team in front is absolutely loaded. Chicago in 2010 and Detroit in 2008 are great examples of this. Look at how the Capitals were doing this year with their goalie that caught fire (either that, or was protected by an air-tight defensive system). In our case - even if we take a slight risk with a downgrade in net, we also have Eddie Lack waiting in the wings......and probably isn't too far off from being where we'd want him to be.

Did Montreal get a do-over and keep Halak?? Neither of St Louis' goalies belongs in that list.

Goaltending isn't our problem. I don't think we have to worry about having good-great goaltending, regardless of which goalie we deal. Look at the cup finalists in the last two seasons. Luongo/Thomas, Quick/Brodeur. You need star-calibre goaltending.

-Why would Dudley be opposed to the idea of upgrading our 2nd line center?.........a guy that can not only bring out more in his linemates via playmaking ability, but can bring more offensively and could easily take over Henrik's spot as #1 center when Henrik declines in a few years.

Who is a better second line Centre than Ryan Kesler? We can all agree it was a very off year for Kes, and he finished 36th amongst Centres in scoring. So, who are we going to "upgrade" to? Hudler, Stepan, Grabovski, Fisher, Plekanec, Legwand, Stastny, Weiss, Deharnais, Jokinen, Ribiero etc. etc. All those guys put up more points than Kesler this year, and I wouldn't take any of them over RK. In 2010-2011 he finished 7th in Centre scoring. So I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. A healthy Ryan Kesler is probably a top-3 2nd line C in the league.

Unless your talking about swapping Kesler for Getzlaf (who's not a real 2nd line C), I don't really see anyone I'd rather have behind Hank. Ray Whitney finished 5th in assists this season, playing on the wing. He's a UFA. He played 18+ mins/night. He's also 40 years old. I think giving him a 1-year deal @ Salo money or pile on the bonus', throw him with Booth and Kes, and seeing how that works makes more sense than finding a replacement for Kesler.

Island Nucklehead wrote:Did Montreal get a do-over and keep Halak?? Neither of St Louis' goalies belongs in that list.

Ahhh yes, I meant Halak. I knew he was St. Louis' goalie and not Price......just had a mental lapse.

Goaltending isn't our problem. I don't think we have to worry about having good-great goaltending, regardless of which goalie we deal. Look at the cup finalists in the last two seasons. Luongo/Thomas, Quick/Brodeur. You need star-calibre goaltending.

True, but I also think that a decent goalie can get 'get hot' when it matters most and carry a team. Washington's goalie this year is a good example of that. Also - a tremendous team in front can make a decent goalie look far better than he is. Chicago in 2010 and Detroit in 2008/09 proved this. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat. Having a superstar goalie isn't a 1-1 pre-requisite to winning a cup in the post lockout era. My line of thinking is that if the Canucks are looking to build depth (both short term and long term), then trading both Luongo and Schneider might be an option to atleast explore. Will it happen? No.......but I think it would be interesting. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if trading just ONE of Luongo or even Schneider will solve our depth issues.

From the assets of independent Luongo and Schneider deals, the Canucks could get a blue chip defenseman and a key top 6 player.......while taking on the contract of a steady goaltender that is capable of playing well when it matters most.......and can hold the fart until Lack is ready to take over the reigns.

Who is a better second line Centre than Ryan Kesler? We can all agree it was a very off year for Kes, and he finished 36th amongst Centres in scoring. So, who are we going to "upgrade" to? Hudler, Stepan, Grabovski, Fisher, Plekanec, Legwand, Stastny, Weiss, Deharnais, Jokinen, Ribiero etc. etc. All those guys put up more points than Kesler this year, and I wouldn't take any of them over RK. In 2010-2011 he finished 7th in Centre scoring. So I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. A healthy Ryan Kesler is probably a top-3 2nd line C in the league.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong. I also agree that Kesler is better than every single one of those guys and I wouldn't trade Kesler for any one of them. To be honest, I'm not even talking about getting another 2nd line center. I'm talking about getting another FIRST line calibre center that would be more than capable of taking over the reigns once the twins regress to the point where they'd be better off playing on the 2nd line.

It's funny that you mention Getzlaf because he's actually one guy that I had in mind. Although he had an off year last year, I think Getzlaf would be a great acquisition......and would be an upgrade over Kesler in terms of what we need (i.e. a more offensively gifted center that can produce more points and get more out of his linemates).

-A deal involving Schneider and Kesler for Getzlaf and Hiller (something to this effect......not sure if this deal is fair or not but if it isn't, then one side would have to sweeten the deal obviously)

Farhan Lalji wrote:However - I think the CONCEPT of trading Luongo and Kesler for a slight upgrade at center and a slight down grade in goal.......combined with packaging Schneider for a top tier defenseman would serve the Canucks extremely well.

And you can quote me on that.

Dudley would disagree with you, and he's a pretty good judge of hockey talent and what is key for a team.

I am curious Meds - why would he disagree?

-I think there are many ways to skin a cat. Yes - a superstar goalie is a tremendous luxury to have.........as teams such as Boston (Thomas), LA (Quick), NYR (Lundquist), and St. Louis (Price/Elliot) have proved in recent years, but a team can also succeed with a "decent" goaltending provided that the team in front is absolutely loaded. Chicago in 2010 and Detroit in 2008 are great examples of this. Look at how the Capitals were doing this year with their goalie that caught fire (either that, or was protected by an air-tight defensive system). In our case - even if we take a slight risk with a downgrade in net, we also have Eddie Lack waiting in the wings......and probably isn't too far off from being where we'd want him to be.

-Why would Dudley be opposed to the idea of upgrading our 2nd line center?.........a guy that can not only bring out more in his linemates via playmaking ability, but can bring more offensively and could easily take over Henrik's spot as #1 center when Henrik declines in a few years.

-Why would Dudley be opposed to using one of our current goalies to trade to Tampa for a deal involving Victor Hedman?..........a guy that can be a blue chip defenseman for many years to come?

From the Globe and Mail.....

There is a belief among some GMs that it's easy to find a goaltender or that a good defence lessens the need for a great one. Dudley said it took him “a lifetime in hockey” to learn that was wrong.

You are advocating for a downgrade in goal with the idea of dealing both Lou and Schneider and going forward with Cam Ward. Ward won a Cup with the 'Canes in 06, but his numbers have always been high 2's and low .900's. He's a really good goalie, but he's not great.

Dudley probably would not disagree with upgrading at center using one of our goaltenders, or even upgrading our defense using one of them. But upgrading both at the expense of both goaltenders is where he would disagree.

I'd also like to note that after reading that article I don't consider Luongo to be "that great goaltender" Dudley is referring to. Luongo doesn't give playes that "comfort zone". When he's in net it seems like almost every mistake the team makes in front of him ends up in the back of the net. I know that's not really the case, but I also know that we have all watched this team play like they are skating on cracked glass when Lou is in net compared to when Schneider is back there. A turnover that results in a breakaway or a two-on-one will be in the back of the Canucks' net 80% of the time when Luongo is between the pipes. I'd guess that number drops to 50% or below when Schneider has their back.

Dudley maybe wasn't watching the Leafs ...............their goaltending was brutal all season and they ended up pretty close to the bottom of the league. USA Hockey have always said you start building a team down the middle... goal tending, Centre then the Defense and last the wingers.

There is a belief among some GMs that it's easy to find a goaltender or that a good defence lessens the need for a great one. Dudley said it took him “a lifetime in hockey” to learn that was wrong.

You are advocating for a downgrade in goal with the idea of dealing both Lou and Schneider and going forward with Cam Ward. Ward won a Cup with the 'Canes in 06, but his numbers have always been high 2's and low .900's. He's a really good goalie, but he's not great.

Dudley probably would not disagree with upgrading at center using one of our goaltenders, or even upgrading our defense using one of them. But upgrading both at the expense of both goaltenders is where he would disagree.

Keep in mind that Dudley's "hey day" was before the lockout/pre-cap era. Back in those days, teams had an unlimited cap and so obviously, having a superstar goaltender was almost an absolute must. However - in a cap world, there is only so much 'cowbell' to go around.

Lets take a look at the teams that have made the Stanley Cup finals in the post lockout era:

2006: Carolina vs. Edmonton. Carolina had Cam Ward and Edmonton had Dwayne Roloson (along with Jussi Markkanen for the finals when Rollie got hurt). In all 3 instances, neither of these 3 goalies were considered among the top 3 or even top 5 goalies in the league. Roloson has always been an excellent playoff performer however.

2007: Anaheim vs. Ottawa. Anaheim had JS Giguerre while Ottawa had Ray Emery. Again - neither goalie was considered a top 3 or even top 5 goalie in the league.......although in Giguerre's case, he has been known to be an excellent playoff performer.

2008 and 2009: Detroit vs. Pitsburgh: Osgood and MAF. Neither goalie was top 3 or even top 5 in the league. Osgood played well but looked even better due to the powerful team in front. The same could be said for MAF.

2010: Chicago vs. Philadelphia. Chicago had Niemi........who as we all know by now, is an average goalie when he doesn't have the luxury of hiding behind a world class team. Philadelphia had Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher. In THIS case, I'm not even sure if any of these 3 goalies could be considered in the top 10 in the league at that time.

2011: Boston vs. Vancouver: For the first time since the lock-out, the best goalie in the league (Thomas) and arguably the 2nd/3rd/4th best goalie in the league (Luongo) met against each other in the finals. Both goalies were very instrumental in helping their teams get to the finals.

2012: Los Angeles vs. New Jersey: Quick is easily a top 3 goalie in the league right now, but Brodeur is not. He was many moons ago but in the year 2012, he doesn't crack the Top 7.

Farhan's conclusion: Outside of Tim Thomas and Roberto Luongo in 2011, and Jonathan Quick in 2012, none of these goalies that have appeared in the Stanley Cup finals since the 2004/2005 lockout could be considered among the best goalies in the league. These goalies were simply average/above average goalies that were either made to look better behind a stacked team in front........OR, simply got hot at the right time.

As long as a team has a decent goalie in front and is capable of either getting hot at the right time, or has a very stacked team in front, I see no reason why said team cannot win the Stanley Cup. It appears as though there are many ways to "skin a cat." Having a superstar goalie such as Tim Thomas or Jonathan Quick is nice, but it is not the "end all" and "be all" according to the evidence.

Cam Ward won the Conn Smythe. He may not have been a 5-6M goalie at the time, but he played like one. Now he's paid like one...

2007: Anaheim vs. Ottawa.

Like you said, Giguere had a Conn Smythe as the loser a couple years prior. Guy was a star, and Anaheim was stacked.

2008 and 2009: Detroit vs. Pitsburgh: Osgood and MAF. Neither goalie was top 3 or even top 5 in the league. Osgood played well but looked even better due to the powerful team in front. The same could be said for MAF.

Battle of super teams. No argument there. Regardless of goalie, these teams are winning the cup. Do the Canucks have a roster that matches either? No.

2010: Chicago vs. Philadelphia.

You could quite easily rank Chicago alongside Det/Chi from the previous years. That team was stacked, top to bottom. We don't enjoy that depth.

2011: Boston vs. Vancouver

Thomas was the best goalie in the season and the playoffs. If Vancouver has a healthier roster in the finals, it's a closer series. We still might not have won it, but we'd have scored more goals.

2012: Los Angeles vs. New Jersey: Quick is easily a top 3 goalie in the league right now, but Brodeur is not. He was many moons ago but in the year 2012, he doesn't crack the Top 7.

Quick is on fire. Brodeur gives his team confidence and motivation. A lot of what a goalie does for your team is related to confidence. We should know. The Canucks "appear" more confident in front of Schneider vs. Luongo, even though their stats are similar.

My Theory: You need to have a goalie that PLAYS like the best goalie in the league to win the cup. It's easier to do this when your goalie is naturally one of the best goalies in the league (Brodeur, Lundvist, Smith, Quick, Thomas, Luongo etc. etc.) than when you hope for him to get hot at the right time (Holtby).

Island Nucklehead wrote: Do the Canucks have a roster that matches either? No.

Agreed with like 95% of your post.......but I have an issue with this comment.

The 2010/2011 Canucks team was superior to both 2008/2009 teams that played for Detroit and Pitsburgh. 117 regular season points is no joke (would have been higher had the Canucks not deliberately tanked a few games in the end there). If not superior, on the same level at worst. You can add 2010 Chicago to that list as well. The Canucks still have most of that core intact. In my hypotethical scenario of trading both Lou and Schneider for depth up front and 'D', I fail to see how our roster would not match the talents of those past Stanley Cup Champions.

Island Nucklehead wrote:My Theory: You need to have a goalie that PLAYS like the best goalie in the league to win the cup. It's easier to do this when your goalie is naturally one of the best goalies in the league (Brodeur, Lundvist, Smith, Quick, Thomas, Luongo etc. etc.) than when you hope for him to get hot at the right time (Holtby).

Definitely agree.

All I'm saying is that there's a hundred ways to skin a cat. Having an established Superstar goalie is definitely a great asset to have, but it's not the end all and be all in my opinion.......especially in a cap era.

If the Canucks are looking for more depth up front and on D (for both the short term and long term), then it's not like they would be destroying their chances at winning a cup by trading both Lou and Schneider for those pieces.

Thomas was the best goalie in the season and the playoffs. If Vancouver has a healthier roster in the finals, it's a closer series. We still might not have won it, but we'd have scored more goals.

I have to say one more thing here (re: Bos/Van).

Don't be fooled by aggregate stats, or let any anti-Canuck media influence you.

It was a close series........solely on the virtue that it was a 7 game series. Period. Any other statistic is completely irrelevant. In 3 of the 7 games played, the Canucks defeated the Bruins......2 of which were shut outs.

If aggregate stats are relevant in any way, then by that logic, we should be more proud of our loss to the LA Kings rather than the Boston Bruins since we were only outscored 12-8 (despite losing in 5 games).

I'm not sure as to where Eddie Lack is in his development right now, but lets say that he's around the level that Cory Schneider was in around early 2010. That leaves what? 1 year-18 months to see significant progress with Eddie Lack? So - assuming that Lack IS the real deal like Schneider and IS about 12-18 months from being a top level goalie, then is the following really a bad strategy?

-Trading Luongo, Kesler, and Schneider in independent deals that lands us a blue chip defenseman, a legit #1 center that will play behind Henrik for a few years but then easily take over the reigns once Henrik's skills diminish, an honest veteran back-up goalie that is capable of playing well when it matters most and/or behind a juggernaut team in front.

-In 12-18 months, letting Eddie Lack take over the reigns as our goalie (kind of like what Schneider is doing right now).

So - in essence, assuming that Eddie Lack truly is "the real deal", (and that's the million dollar question), we basically get a guy that is ultimately as good as Schneider/Luongo, but with 2 more significant pieces up front which ensures both our short term and long term future.

Farhan Lalji wrote:All I'm saying is that there's a hundred ways to skin a cat. Having an established Superstar goalie is definitely a great asset to have, but it's not the end all and be all in my opinion.......especially in a cap era.

There are a million ways to skin a cat. But I'd like to make sure the tools I use are the best available. If the guard on your knife isn't secure, you're liable to cut yourself...

One look at the Flyers will tell you how desperately teams need quality goaltending. The Flyers thought they were getting that with Bryzgalov, and it sure didn't work. I would hate to assume we could accept a "downgrade" in net, only to watch our new goalie single-handedly ruin us.

Either way, the asset we get back from ONE of them makes our team better. You get the best of both worlds. You still have fantastic goaltending, while adding to your roster elsewhere.

Island Nucklehead wrote:One look at the Flyers will tell you how desperately teams need quality goaltending. The Flyers thought they were getting that with Bryzgalov, and it sure didn't work. I would hate to assume we could accept a "downgrade" in net, only to watch our new goalie single-handedly ruin us.

Oh definitely. I completely agree with that.

Having said that - just because a goalie isn't a superstar such as Tim Thomas, Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundquist, etc., doesn't mean that they will automatically be like Dan Cloutier or Ilya Brizgalov. Hence my term - slight downgrade.

For example - if we're thinking Getzlaf from Anaheim, then maybe a guy like Jonas Hiller can be a part of that package (If Schneider and Kesler are going the other way).

Anyway - there's no way Gillis will be entertaining this line of thought anyways, but if it's depth that the Canucks really want, then perhaps this route isn't such a bad idea........ESPECIALLY if you have a blue chipper like Eddie Lack in the system.

Farhan Lalji wrote:a legit #1 center that will play behind Henrik for a few years but then easily take over the reigns once Henrik's skills diminish,

Although an upgrade over Kesler at the 2nd line position may be slight (i.e. in a hypothetical scenario, lets say it's Getzlaf), that slight difference might have a huge rippling effect.......especially given the needs of our team.

Let's say we have a guy like Getzlaf instead of Kesler. Although we lose a bit on the defensive end of things (which is somewhat irrelevant since we'd be using a guy like Pahlsson or Lapierre to play shut down guy), we gain more on the offensive side of things........in terms of potential for point production.........AND.......getting more out of linemates thanks to superior playmaking ability.

Long story short - an upgrade from Kesler to a guy like Getzlaf (or whoever) might be slight, but the mere presence of this centerman could help bring out the best in Booth and Higgins (true sign of a #1 center). Now all of a sudden, instead of having just Hank, Dan, Kesler, and Burrows as your only real offensive threat come playoff time, you now have Hank, Dan, Getzlaf, Booth, and Higgins as potential threats.

Expunge Getzlaf form your dreams. His wife is from Souther Cal and while he has 1 year left on his current contract he ain't re signing. There of course you could move to California yourself, unless you have a NTC

Farhan, how would you say the Canucks look on the ice when playing in front of Luongo as compared to when playing in front of Schneider?

I would say that they are far more comfortable with Schneider in net. Regardless of what they say in the press and media, the on-ice performance of the team indicates that they feel like Cory has their back rather than the team having to have Lou's back. I can't see why anyone in their right mind would want to remove a goaltender that has won the absolute confidence of the entire team and downgrade that position. Especially when Schneider can likely be re-signed at less than $4M for the immediate future. Look no further than Schneider's numbers in both regular season and playoffs this year. Sure he played a meager 3 games in the post-season, but he put up better numbers than Conn Smythe favorite Jonathan Quick.

This does support your theory that goaltending is not as relevant to playoff wins as the team in front of the goalie. But the team did show up and play better hockey in games 3, 4, and 5 when Schneider was in net. I don't think that the return we get for Schneider would be worth what the team loses in chemistry, poise, and the on-ice performance that Schneider brings.

And as for the Ward vs Roloson matchup in 2006, well Ward won something that year......oh yeah the Conn Smythe, and Roloson probably would have won it if Edmonton had won because quite frankly neither team gets there without Ward and Rollie.